In a massive lawsuit filed in a California court, Instagram CEO Adam Mosseri rejected the assumption that teenage social media users could be clinically addicted to social media.
Meta, the parent company of Instagram and Facebook, along with Google-owned YouTube, are defendants in the trial that is expected to set a legal precedent over whether popular social media platforms intentionally designed their platforms to be addictive to children.
Mosseri defends himself against accusations of addiction to social networks
During his testimony regarding allegations of children’s addiction to social media that are supported by several other countries, Mosseri stated that it is necessary to differentiate between clinical addiction and problematic use. He admitted that he himself had experienced a feeling of addiction to a Netflix show, but argued that this was not the same as a clinical addiction.
American women who suffered mental harm due to social media use
The civil petition, filed against Meta and YouTube, primarily covers allegations that a 20-year-old woman, identified as Kaley GM, suffered severe mental harm after becoming addicted to social media as a child.
He started using YouTube at age six and joined Instagram at age 11, before moving to Snapchat and TikTok two or three years later.
Mosseri was the first well-known Silicon Valley figure to appear before the jury to defend himself against accusations that Instagram operates as little more than a dopamine “slot machine” for young people prone to addiction.
Present before the jury, Mosseri also rejected the idea that Meta was motivated by a “move fast and break things” spirit that preferred profit over safety.
Leading Silicon Valley figures have appeared at the trial, and Mosseri’s testimony precedes a more anticipated appearance by Mark Zuckerberg, currently scheduled for February 18. YouTube CEO Neil Mohan is also expected to testify the following day.
The plaintiffs’ lawyer, Mark Lanier, has accused Meta and Google of planting addiction in young people to gain users and profits, while Meta’s lawyer has argued that the plaintiff’s suffering was due to her family context and could not be attributed to her use of Instagram or other social networks.
